[Closed] Should peers be stripped of peerages if convicted of naughtiness?

I reckon a criminal offence is a little more than "naughtiness".

Simple answer: Yes, I think they should be.

We-ell,

What you're proposing there is different punishments for different classes of people. Is that really what you want to see?

What you're proposing there is different punishments for different classes of people.

Oh no, not this again.....

What you're proposing there is different punishments for different classes of people. Is that really what you want to see?

How do you figure that, unless it's meant as a play on words?

Other 'types' of people can be barred for misbehaviour- accountants, solicitors, company directors etc.

I think Jeffrey Archer is a very good example of British nobility and suits his peerage very well.

I think Jeffrey Archer is a very good example of British nobility and suits his peerage very well.

Surely that should be nobility with a "k"?

I think all peers should be stripped of their peerages anyway, but for committing a criminal offence, especially fiddling their expenses as a peer, they should definitely be stripped of it. And made to pay it all back, twice!

How do you figure that, unless it's meant as a play on words?

Any crime comes with an assorted punishment, does it not? If people with peerages are stripped of their peerage and commoners are not (because they don't have one), then you're either treating peers more harshly or reducing their sentences in other areas. Should peers get larger punishments than commoners?

Oh no, not this again.....

I don't know what you mean by this, but I'm using the word "class" purely to differentiate between peers and commoners.

IMO - anyone convicted of a crime that [b][i]could[/i][/b] carry a prison sentence should be barred from public service for a period of time and lose any financial or material benefits that come with it

I don't mean people's professions, I mean people like MPs Peers, councillors etc.

As I see it, peers (of the realm) are in some way representing the rest of us, differentiated by their titles and supposed to be 'special'. Once a convicted crim, then you've shown yourself not to be worthy of this and any priveleges it brings.

Its the whole issue with the class system. It all relys on the concept that the hereditary lot and those at the pinnicle are in some way special. The validity of the whole system collapses when it becomes self evident that they are not.

Personally I think to err is Human, so to pretend to be infallible should therefore automatically disqualify you from high office. So in a roundabout sort of way I'm getting to the point where I think our top people should really just be treated like everyone else, otherwise its perpetuating the myth.

no they shouldn't... it takes all sorts to make a world..

I don't know what you mean by this, but I'm using the word "class" purely to differentiate between peers and commoners.

Who are you calling common?

[spits on the floor and swears in disgust]

Should peers be stripped of peerages [s]if convicted of naughtiness[/s]?

Any crime comes with an assorted punishment, does it not? If people with peerages are stripped of their peerage and commoners are not (because they don't have one), then you're either treating peers more harshly or reducing their sentences in other areas. Should peers get larger punishments than commoners?

For example fraud stops you being an accountant or a compaany director

you obviously don't know the ones I know!

Any crime comes with an assorted punishment, does it not? If people with peerages are stripped of their peerage and commoners are not (because they don't have one), then you're either treating peers more harshly or reducing their sentences in other areas. Should peers get larger punishments than commoners?

Lots of jobs come with the proviso that you can't do them if committed of certain crimes.

For example, exactly the same argument you suggest could be used to argue that convicted paedophiles should still be allowed to become teachers, after all if they were taxi drivers (say), they could still continue their job after prison - should teachers get larger punishments than taxi drivers?

So what if the queen, or one of our future kings get convicted of something. Will they be barred from their job? And who by?

The problem with our monarchy and aristocracy is that in the modern era there is no logic to it, and once you start to tinker with it to bring logic into it, where would you stop? Presumably with a republic.

Wouldn't stop my neighbour being a countess and heiress to a couple of earldoms and owning significant chunks of the county, or the woman a few doors down being a shoo-in for the upper chamber for "services" to John Prescott and being Labour chief "whip", complete with dodgy expenses claim for soundproofing her bedroom!

should teachers get larger punishments than taxi drivers?

they do dont they under the "abuse of position" kind of thing?

Just as a theoretical aside: one of the things you have to worry about when you start stripping people who have a role in the political process of their right to play that role is the prospect of politically-motivated prosecutions. This is (ostensibly) parliamentarians have immunity in many places (and isn't there a degree of immunity for Parliament-related activity in the UK, which is why whatshisname could superinjunctionbust about the footballer and Trafigura?).

Not that I am suggesting this fiddling ****er was prosecuted maliciously.

yes it is abuse of trust iirc and also that they tend to have groomed vulnerable kids..possibly also apply to a taxi driver as well if they were part of the school run or similiar
FWIW list 99 bans folk from working as teachers for a variety of offences including breach of trust and cheating in exams. Sexual offeces do not lead to an automatic entry on it but a judge can effectively order it. iirc the secretary of state decides who goes on and the list contents is a secret

MPs can lose office, so should Peers. At the end of the day elected second chamber FTMFW.

It should be irrelevant because an upper house that is not democratically elected should not exist.

At the end of the day a [i]truly proportionally[/i] elected second chamber FTMFW

Fixed.

The difference between losing your teaching job for being a nonce and losing your peerage for 'any crime' (as suggested by the OP) is in the former the conviction would directly affect your ability to do the job.

A closer reflection might be to occlude from parliament those who have been convicted of a certain subset of crimes. Perhaps the requirement to sit in the House should be revised to allow only those peers without said convictions; we could do something wooly and English like calling it "upstanding character" maybe.

Personally, I think it's a stupid system anyway, and the whole idea of peerage is loony. However, I fundamentally don't agree that personal and professional lives should be intertwined; footballers who get suspended from playing because of extramarital affairs, for example.

Yes. In support of my argument I give you Mark Thatcher.